The Committee is asked to note any apologies for absence and substitutions received from Members.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Alexander (with no substitution) and Councillor Smith (with Councillor Sudra substituting).

Councillors are invited to declare any Disclosable Pecuniary Interests, Other Registerable Interests of Non-Registerable Interests, and the nature of it, in relation to any item on the agenda.

Though he was not present at the meeting, Councillor Alexander had, prior to the commencement of the meeting, informed Officers that he wished to declare an Interest in Planning Application 24/01911/FUL – Land Adjacent Victoria Street, Dovercourt, CO12 3AR. Though Councillor Alexander had not considered himself pre-determined on this application, he was a current member of the Levelling Up Fund and Capital Regeneration Projects Portfolio Holder Working Party which he believed could bring him into direct conflict with the planning procedure.

Subject to providing two working days’ notice, a Member of the Committee may ask the Chairman of the Committee a question on any matter in relation to which the Council has powers or duties which affect the Tendring District and which falls within the terms of reference of the Committee.

There were no such Questions on Notice submitted by Councillors on this occasion.

Demolition of existing derelict 20 Victoria Street, and comprehensive redevelopment of the site including construction of 4 storey residential building consisting of 8 units (Use Class C3), car parking, landscaping and associated works.

Members were told that the application was before the Planning Committee as Tendring District Council was the applicant and owner of the sites in question. The proposal sought permission for the erection of a four storey residential block to provide for eight apartments, following the demolition of Number 20 Victoria Street, as well as conversion of a site into an ancillary car park to provide for eight spaces. Given that the sites fell within the Settlement Development Boundary for Dovercourt and an area prioritised for regeneration, the principle of development was accepted.

The Committee was informed that Officers considered that the design, scale and layout was of an acceptable nature in-keeping with the area’s existing character, and whilst it was noted that ECC Heritage had raised a low level of less than substantial harm, the public benefits of the proposal far outweighed that harm. There was not considered to be significant harm to the amenities of neighbouring residents, and all of the apartments would meet the National Space Standards. Essex Highways Authority had raised no objections, and whilst the parking provisions fell just below the Essex Parking Standards, Officers noted that it was just a minor shortfall and the site was within a highly sustainable location in good walking distance to a range of services and facilities.

Officers told Members that the site fell within a high-risk flood zone, however the Environment Agency had raised no objections. Further, the applicant had undertaken a Sequential Test to identify whether there were alternative sites available within a lower flooding risk, however it had concluded that there were none.

Members heard that taking all of the above into consideration, Officers had concluded that whilst there were some minor harms from the proposal, namely the low level of less than substantial harm to the Dovercourt Conservation Area and slight shortfall of parking provision, they were significantly outweighed by the benefits of the scheme.

The Committee had before it the published Officer report containing the key planning issues, relevant planning policies, planning history, any response from consultees, written representations received and a recommendation of approval.

At the meeting, an oral presentation was made by the Council’s Senior Planning Officer (MP) in respect of the application.

An Officer Update Sheet had been circulated to Members prior to the meeting which covered the following matters:-

“Paragraph 8.19 states that the suggested alterations would result in the loss of two units, but for full clarity it would mean that two of the units would fail to meet the nationally described space standards.

Paragraph 8.28 incorrectly states that all units are either one or two bedrooms; two of the units are to be served by three bedrooms. However, the Officers assessment within this paragraph remains unchanged.

The wording of Condition 12 is proposed to be to include reference to details of the railings, and to read as follows:

CONDITION: No development/works shall be commenced above slab level until precise details of the manufacturer and types and colours of external  ...  view the full minutes text for item 75.